The Challenge of Detecting Design

Mike Gene has an excellent post at The Design Matrix blog. Here's an excerpt:

"The distinction between the mind-like action of designing and the hand-like action of actualizing is key. Conceptualization precedes actualization. Thus, detecting design is much more like detecting another mind than detecting busy hands. In fact, if you did not perceive the mind, the hands would not be detected as designing - they’d be detected as doing. Without making any serious and honest effort to detect the mind-like action of designing, a focus on the hand-like action of actualization will not signal design."

UPDATE 05-Jan-2009: The above link is no longer available.

Outside the Box, Back in the Blogroll

I once had the blog, Outside the Box (OtB), on my blogroll to the right, but removed it due to lack of updates. I can see now that was a mistake on my part. That is an error that is quickly corrected. OtB has made its return to the EE blogroll (which is getting quite large actually!).

With that done, I found several interesting posts @ OtB regarding the reasons for his belief (parts four and five to come). I encourage you all to read them and post comments, should you feel the need, just keep them clean.

Here are some excerpts I found interesting...

"...the arguments from fine-tuning, no matter how intuitively they point to a Creator, can never prove the existence of God. For me and many others, however, Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe."
-Cliff Martin, "Reasons: I. Finely-Tuned Cosmos"

"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence... [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the ‘miracle’ that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."
-quote from Albert Einstein as posted by Cliff Martin, "Reasons: II. Ordered Universe"

"Denton uses the term “directed evolution” to help answer the inevitable questions about how complexity of such staggering proportions could ever come to self-organize. Mike Gene suggests another term, which I prefer: front loaded evolution. Both of these theorists have proposed that the incredibly elaborate machinery inside the cell, machinery composed of variously shaped protein molecules specified by RNA blueprints, demand a designer. Not the designer of the Intelligent Design theorists who propose a designer for complex organisms. Rather, the designer of the DNA process which is capable of building such organisms over time through the processes Darwin described."
-Cliff Martin, "Reasons: III. Markers of Intelligence"

Redundancy - A Mark of Design?

Staying up until 3am does have its upsides. I stumbled upon an excellent NOVA episode in the wee hours of Sunday morning called "Building on Ground Zero". The program went through both the ASCE and NIST investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2). Both reports came to similar conclusions (impact and explosion of airplane coupled with weakening of steel trusses by fire brought the Twin Towers down), but attributed different mechanisms (pancake floor collapse as opposed to truss connection pulling columns inward causing fracture).

"Building on Ground Zero also focused on a design feature used frequently by structural engineers called redundancy. In structural engineering, redundancy generally means multiple load paths. The ultimate goal of a structural engineer is to safely transmit the loads to the ground. This is usually done by focusing on a primary load path. But what happens when the primary load path is compromised? If the load cannot safely get to the ground, then the equilibrium of the structure is shot and collapse (in part or in whole) occurs. If a structure is said to be redundant, then there are multiple loads paths. Redundancy is also a means to prevent progressive collapse where the failure of a single member causes the failure or collapse of the structure (in part or as a whole). In part, it was the redundancy of Twin Towers' structural design that allowed them to remain standing despite multiple columns being severed, thus allowing several hundred occupants the ability to escape.

So can redundancy in a natural object point towards design? Possibly. Taking the Mike Gene approach, let's grant that a redundant feature in a natural object is possibly the outcome of a purposeful design. In order to progress to plausibility, I propose one of the things that needs to be looked at is the context of the redundancy (i.e. does the redundancy serve a purpose?). Redundancy without meaning or context points more towards a "Myopic Tinkerer" than a "Rational Engineer".

However, there is an interesting flip side to this: I don't believe the designer of WTC1 and 2 intentionally incorporated redundancy for the events of 9/11.* This would mean that redundancy was an accidental outcome rather than purposely used for the case that several columns at a certain point would be missing. So where does this fit in to the "design paradigm" and it is possible to even know if the redundancy was purposely designed or not?

The asylum is now open. Let the comments commence!

*The tubular structure of WTC1 and 2 were designed to resist wind and earthquake loads, as well as the impact of a Boeing 707. I don't believe that the impact studies looked at the possibility that the 707 would take out several columns at a certain elevation, but I could be wrong.

Reflections on Body Worlds

Well, despite all nagging concerns I had, I went to Body Worlds (BW) on Monday.

Before I comment on the actual display, I wish to address the concerns I had:

1. I found the allegations that BW received human bodies through suspicious means groundless. No concrete evidence was uncovered since the allegations were made. On top of that, BW went out of their way to show the process and consent forms for accepting bodies via donations to science. In short, I was satisfied the donors had given their informed consent.

2. The consent forms include a box to check if the donor consents to his/her organs being sold to educational institutions, with proceeds going to covers the costs of the plastination process, not for profit. I found this to be a reasonable request.

3. The BW display did not show the donors in a demeaning fashion. The poses were mainly for educational purposes, although I would recommend not taking children under 12 to the show (of which there were quite a few, unfortunately).

To sum up, I am satisfied most of my concerns were adequately met and I felt more comfortable viewing most of the displays.

That said, for those who feel comfortable, I fully recommend seeing Body Worlds. The exhibit I went to organised the displays by the different systems of the body which included (not an inclusive list) skeletal, muscular, nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, urination and kidneys, reproductive, etc. The only room I didn't spend a lot of time in was the fetal development room. I took a quick scan, found I wasn't entirely comfortable with viewing it, and waited outside for my wife (who found it very interesting and would recommend all teenage girls see it in order to give them a more complete picture of what goes on during pregnancy).

Also included were banners showing the history of anatomy. One of the most intriguing (IMO) was the viewing theatres from Renaissance times were the rich and poor would mingle amongst each other while viewing autopsies/dissections (I would have thought there would have been a section set aside for the rich and another for the poor).

The displays showed both a "normally functioning" body and how diseases affect the function (there were a lot of smokers who donated their bodies!). The "normal" bodies displayed many impressive features, including (and forgive me for not remembering the proper names) four arteries going from the heart to the brain that connect in a circle at the base of the brain, helping to ensure sufficient blood flow in the event one of the arteries gets blocked.

The main thing I took from this is that a "normally functioning" body gives the strong appearance of an efficiently designed system*. By efficient, I mean that each discrete system (i.e. skeletal, circulatory, etc.) appeared "designed" to provide optimum function of that system given certain constraints and requirements from other discrete systems and/or the larger system (i.e. the human body). Each discrete system works together to provide a larger multi-functional and adaptive system. Take away or significantly change a component of a local system, the larger system can still function, but not at the efficiency of the "normal" body.

All in all, I found Body Worlds to be a fascinating exhibit that treated the donated bodies with dignity and respect while providing an educational aspect that the layman can grasp.

*Efficient System Design is a concept I will be dealing with in more detail in the near future, but feel free to comment on it. I enjoy and appreciate everyone's point of view (thus far).

The Problem of Design - Part 3: The Proposed Framework

To summarise our journey thus far, the current attempts at objectively recognising design in nature - Design Explanatory Filter and Design Matrix - are not quite adequate due to subjective parameters. While the design inference is legitimate, it seems that Intelligent Design Theory has skipped a step by not more fully incorporating Information Theory. It is also apparent that a new way of measuring information of objects in nature (i.e. a "measuring stick") needs to be developed. Once we have obtained this "measuring stick", we can apply it, using a framework, to objectively recognise design in nature.

The Proposed Framework

As an engineer, I see a designed object as incorporating three basic but essential parameters:

1. Material,
2. Assembly, and
3. Function

For example, take the floor system of a typical building. The "main" materials of this floor system consist of a concrete slab supported by a thin steel deck, which is itself supported by structural steel beams and/or trusses. The beams/trusses are supported by structural steel columns. To assemble the floor, the columns must be installed first, followed by the beams/trusses, followed by the steel deck installed on top of the beams/trusses, and then concrete is poured on the steel deck to form the floor. A function of the floor is to "hold up", or resist, the loads applied by the materials' self-weight, people and various equipment (partitions, desks, carpet, etc.)

Parameters of the Framework

Material:

The material information parameter, I(m), has two features:

1. Material always contains a minimum amount of information, I(m) > 0, and
2. A specific material potentially can be a designed object.

To illustrate this second point, take, for example, the structural steel beam mentioned above. The steel beam (material) is fabricated* by rolling/extruding a steel ingot to obtain the shape of an "I". The ingot (material) is the product of combining molten iron-ore with other specific elements/compounds (carbon, manganese, chromium, etc.) It is at the solid iron-ore stage where one can say the "raw material" is found (i.e. no design).

*Please note that this is a highly simplified description of what goes into making a steel beam. The purpose of the description was to provide an example of how a material can be designed.

Now let's look at the example from an information point-of-view. At the "raw material" stage, the iron-ore is at the "lowest-end" of the information scale. At each step, iron-ore to ingot, ingot to structural steel, information is added in the form of "assembly" of extra materials in to a new shape, and function(s) beyond the original "raw material" (ex: in the case of the structural steel beam, resisting applied loads in a floor system).

This is how materials themselves can be designed. However, the levels of design are "noise" right now. Let's consider "raw material" (i.e. no design) from this point on when referring to materials, or I(m) > 0.

To the best of my knowledge, Information Theory is currently able to objectively measure the amount of information of an event, but not of an object. Therefore, we do not have an absolute measure (at this time) for I(m). Thus, I propose a relative measure until an absolute measure is developed. For the sake of discussion, let's say that "raw material" has I(m) = 1.

Assembly:

Let's say a design is composed of only "raw materials", or I(m) = 1. When these materials are arranged (or assembled) in a specific manner, information is increased. The value of the assembly information parameter, I(a), depends on at least three variables**:

a. Natural law: If it can be shown that the "assembly" of the material is one that follows the laws of science, then I(a) = 1 (ex: crystallisation and vortices).

b. Degree of assembly: The more "minimum steps of assembly" required, the higher I(a) becomes (ex: a "sand castle" consisting of a single bucket of sand vs. an actual medieval castle).

c. Various assembly pathways: I(a) increases as the ways to orderly assemble the object decreases (i.e. an object that can be assembled in only one way would contain more information than an object that can be assembled in multiple ways).

Both b and c imply that if the assembly process is beyond natural law, then I(a) > 1.

Function:

A toddler could assemble a "structure" of sticks, stones and mud, but almost no one would consider it a designed object because it lacks function. The value of the function information parameter, I(fn), depends on at least two variables**:

a. Natural law: This refers to the natural properties of the object. If the function of the object goes beyond the properties, then the amount of "functional information" increases [I(fn) > 1].

b. Multiple functions: the more functions beyond natural properties, the more information contained in object [I(fn) increases]. This could be useful in determining the level of design in an object.

**It should be noted that there could be other variables for determining I(a) and I(fn). These are just the basic ones.

Minimum Threshold of Design

All three parameters - I(m), I(a) and I(fn) - contribute to a final outcome to determine design. A simple equation can be stated:

I(object) = I(m) x I(a) x I(fn)

The minimum value of each parameter is set to 1. This means that if all parameters contain the minimum value of information, then I(object) = 1. I propose the following statement for a reasonable minimum threshold for detecting design:

If the amount of information contained in an object is greater than the minimum amount of information contained in raw material (or 1), then the object is considered designed.

Issues Facing the Framework

There is an obvious issue with the above statement: at what point in a natural object do we define I(m) = 1, or what is the "raw material" in nature?

I propose the amino acid as the "raw material". The immediate problem with doing this is that potentially any protein, DNA, cellular structure, etc. could surpass the minimum design threshold when it may have no business doing so. If true, this could be a potential fatal weakness of the framework.

However, there are checks and balances that can be incorporated through I(a) and I(fn). For example, if it could be shown is that proteins organise according to some "law of nature", then I(a) = 1 since the "assembly" of the protein can be fully described by natural law. Also, if it could be shown that the function of proteins "naturally flow" from the function of amino acids (i.e. it is a natural property of amino acids to form functioning proteins), then I(fn) = 1. To the best of my knowledge, neither assembly nor "flow of function" has been shown to be subject to natural law; however, I do concede that this may change with some future discovery. That said, scientists cannot depend on future discovery; they (and we) must work with what we've got at present. Therefore, if presently I(a) and I(fn) > 1 for proteins, then so be it.

There are several other challenges for this framework to be a suitable tool for objectively recognising design. They include, but are not limited to:

1. Developing a suitable "measuring stick" for determining values (absolute or relative) of I(m).


2. Determining what (if any) other variables affect the value of I(a) and I(fn).


3. Further investigation into the minimum threshold for design (currently set at I(object) > 1).


4. Determining the effect of other (if any) parameters beyond I(m), I(a) and I(fn).

For Public Comment...

Whew! Got all that?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you my proposal for a framework to objectively recognise design in nature. Keep in mind, this is simply a conceptual framework. There is a lot of work to be done to hash out the details, as described in the list above. If this framework is valid, I fully expect revisions to be made.

So what do you think? Is this framework a good first step or cr*p? Let the discussion/critiques begin...

The Problem of Design

I have been reading up on Intelligent Design for about 4 years. I was drawn to it both as an engineer and as a Christian. The controversy is immense (in the U.S. mainly, not Canada). It seems to boil down to whether design is real in nature and the universe and if so, how can we objectively recognise if something is designed.

To the best of my knowledge, there are currently two attempts at quantifying design in nature: the Explanitory Filter (EF) as proposed by Dr. William Dembski, and the Design Matrix (DM) as proposed by Mike Gene. I will attempt to summarise the EF since I am more familiar with it than DM (I really need to order a copy of The Design Matrix).

There are three filters in EF: 1. contingency/necessity (natural law), 2. complexity, and 3. specification. An event is observed and it's probability of occuring by chance and/or necessity is calculated. How far the event passes down the EF depends on how low the probability is. If the event can be explained by natural law, then it remains stuck in filter #1 and is attributed to necessity (high probability). If the event's probability is less than a value Dembski calls the "universal probability bound" (UPB = 1 in 10^150, very small!!!), then it remains stuck in filter #2 and is attributed to chance (read The Design Revolution to see how Dembski calculated UPB).
The third filter is the most controversial. If the event "matches a conditionally independent pattern", then in passes through the 3rd filter and is called "specified complexity" (another word for design); if the event does not match a conditionally independent pattern, then it is stuck and it attributed to chance.

There is a problem with this last step: how objective is this "conditionally independent pattern"? For a good critique of the EF, read Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science by Del Ratzsch (another book I need to order!). From what I know about the DM, there are also some subjective criteria used to determine the possibility of design.

So where does this leave us? I think we have a good intuition of what a design looks like, but how can we objectively quantify it? It appears that we're not there, yet.

In Part 2, I will ask the question "Did ID skip a step?" and attempt to provide an answer.

In Part 3, I will propose a basic framework for objectively recognising design in nature.